
Mu 



1 



E 430 
.n87 
Copy 1 



SPEECH 

OF 

HON. DANIEL MORRIS, OF N. Y, 

y THE CONFISCATION BILL. 



DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JAN. 21, 1864. 



Tfae House having under cou»ideratioa the coaSscatioa of the property of rebels, Mr. MOBBIS 
«aid : 

Mr. Speaker : When the resolution now under discussion was before the 
Judiciary Committee, I approved of it without a thorough examination. 
I then thought as I now do, that it is not only safe but that it is wise to 
conform a law involving such weighty interests as does this to the provi- 
sions of the Coostilution of the United States, 

The Constitution, section three, article three, provides — 

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of trea- 
son shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted." 

On the llth day of July, 1862, in view of the treasonable rebellion in 
the land, and for the purpose of checking it, and of punishing the parties 
thereto. Congress passed and the President approved of " An act to sup- 
press insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate 
the propel ty of rebels, and for other purposes." At the same date a joint 
resolution was passed and approved explanatory of the act in question. 
It is now proposed to amend the resolution of 1862 so as to make it and 
said act conform to the provisions of the Constitution. This being done, 
if any question arises under said act, it will be left to our courts for con- 
struction and adjudication. Section one of said act is as follows: 

♦'That evt ry person who shall hereafter commit the crime of treason against the United States, 
and shall b^ adjudged guilty thereof, shall suffer death, and all his slavrs, if any, shall be declared 
and made free ; or sit the discretion of the court he shall be imprisoned for not less ihan Ave years 
and fined not 1-ess than $10,000, and all his slaves, if wny, shall be declared and made free ; said fine 
shall be levied ami collected on any or all of the i^roperty , real and personal, excluding slaves, of 
which the said person so convicted was the owner at the lime of committing the said crime, any Bale 
or conveyance to the contrary nowithstanding." •» ■ 

This section provides for the punishment of treason after an offender is 
found guilty. Section five of said act provides — 

" That to insure the speedy termination of the present rebellion it shall be the duty of the Presi- 
dent of the United States to cause tb« seizure of all the estate and property, money, stocks, 
credits, and effects of the persons hereinafter named in this section, and to "apply and use the 
same and the proceeds thereof for the support of the Army of the United States." 

It will be noticed that this section has no reference to treason or its 
punishment. The joint resolution of 1862 it is claimed restricts the 
operations of said act, as is evidenced by the following clause : 

" Nor shall any punishtnent or proceedings under said act be so construed as to work &/orf$iiw« 
of the real etitate of the offender beyond Us natural li/e." 






The resolution now pending proposes to amend and modify said clause 
and act, so that it shall read — 

" Nor shall any punishment or proceeding under said act be so construed as to work a for- 
feiture of the estate of the offender except during his life, this amendment bein^ intended to 
limit the operation and effect of the said resolution and act; and the same arc hereby limited 
only so far as to make them conform to section thre«, article three of the Constitution of the 
United States." 

I apprehend all will agree that under the act of 1862, were it not for 
the restrictive clause of the explanatory resolution now sought to be 
amended, the fee of the real estate of those named in section five could 
be confiscated, unless the provisions of the Constitution inhibit it. I will 
here say, though I do not propose to argue the question, nor is it germane 
to the subject in hand, that I have great doubt whether the resolution of 
1862 in the least restricts the act referred to. This brings me to the ques- 
tion as to the propriety and the effect of the amendment. 

My colleague [Mr. KernanJ alleged — 

" We have from the President a statement that any attempt by Congress or by the law-making 
power to make as a part punishment of treason the forfeiture of a greater estate in lands than 
a life estate of the offender would be unconstitutional," 

It is suflicient, in re|>ly to this, to say there is no attempt made, and no 
purpose even hinted at iu the act of 1862, 

"To make as a part punishment of treason the forfeiture of a greater estate in lands than 
a life estate." * 

The act provides for the punishment of treason. This the Constitution 
expressly authorizes. The punishment prescribed by section one is, first, 
death, and the freedom of the offender's slaves. Of this there is no com- 
plaint. Second, it provides for a fine and imprisonment of the off"ender. 
There is no forfeiture in this. The clause in the Constitution was not in- 
tended nor has it ever been held that it prevented the collection of fines 
by a sale of an offender's real estate. Even in slight mis lemeanors this 
is done; much more can it be done in punishment of the hiirhest crime 
known to our laws. Forfeiture in England was not the punishment pre- 
scribed by statute, it was the result of a conviction by virtue of the com- 
mon law. 

The attainder, taint of treason, worked a forfeiture independent of the 
statute. Somewhat analogous are some of our laws. Any person, upon 
conviction and sentence for a felony, forfeits his citizenship. This cotMC- 
qucnce results without its being named in the statute defining felony and 
prescribing its punishment. This effect is the taint or workings of felony. 
Should a colony of citizens from the United States sot up a government in 
one of the islands of the Pacific, knowing that under the laws with which 
they were familiar a conviction and sentence for felony worked a forfeiture 
(loss) of (litizenship without its being specified in the statute naming the 
punishment, and should they wish to restrict the effects O'f punishment to 
the strict terms of the statute, and to what must necessarily grow out of 
them, they would be likely to insert a clause in their organic law similar 
to the clause in question. The object would be not to inhibit the law- 
making power from declaiing that a person convicted of felony should be 
imprisoneil and forfeit his citizenship, but it would be lo inhibit it unless 
it was made part of the penalty by statute. 

A bill of attainder was an act of Parliament, and pas.sed just as any 
other law. It named the partieular person, defined the crime, and passed 
sentence. This is guarded against by article one, section nine, of our Con- 
stUutiou ; but attainder reraainft; it is only the biU of attainder that i» 



prohibited. Attainder in itself is the taint, disgrace, or blemish growing 
out of a conviction or bill. Attainder of treason, like forfeiture, was not 
mentioned in the statute as a part punishment of treason ; it grew out, or 
resulted in consequence, of a conviction or bill. 

Now, as I understand the framers of the Constitution, they intended and 
did prohibit bills of attainder, and they provided that attainder, the taint, 
the fact of a conviction should not work a forfeiture or loss of civil rights 
or property in and of itself. Or in other words, the carrying of any sen- 
tence into execution necessarilv works certain consequences. As the im- 
prisonment of an offender necessarily deprives him of the society of his 
friends and the care of his property these need not be specified, but a loss 
of property or of citizenship after the expiration of his imprisonment does 
not necessarily follow. To work this result a warrant for it must be found 
either in the statutory or in the common law. The framers of the Constitu- 
tion meant, then, to say, and they do say, nothing shall follow from a con- 
viction for treasoa except what inevitably results, unless it is expressly 
stated by the law-making power. And then even this requires that the 
sentence must be carried into effect during the life of the offendei'. It can- 
not be done, as it was in England, after the death of the criminal. What 
adds force to this last view is the fact that furfeiture in law means a mode 
of changing title. When the title of property passes by contract it is 
voluntary. When it is changed by forfeiture, it is against the owner's will. 
If, then, we substitute the meaning of forfeiture for the word itself, the 
clause in the Constitution would read, "or take from the traiior his title 
to his property, except during his life;" that is, except it be done during 
his life. No matter how guilty the person is, it he dies before sentence the 
execution of the law is suspended. Hence the meaning i?, not that the 
forfeiture terminates with the life of the offender, but that the judgment of 
the court must be executed during his life. 

Section fifth of the act, as I have before stated, has no reference to 
treason or its punishment. This section is little else than a coercive war 
measure. The President as Commander-in-Chief of our armies, by his 
proclamation, might have directed the same thing. The rebels are treated 
as belligerents; hence it follows the Commander-in-Chief may seize their 
property and confiscate it, I do not clearly see how these rebels can claim 
the protection of the Constitution. Indeed, I do not know that they do, 
unless members on this floor are their agents and representatives. These 
men, as I understand it, despise and reject our Constitution. A person 
who claims the protection of law must respect and obey it. They do not 
reside with us, and they claim to be aliens. Talk then of the rights of a 
rebel under our Constitution, by him abjured and defied; talk of the rights 
of an outlaw ! As well can I comprehend you when you talk of a holy 
sinner, an honest thief, or a loyal traitor. It is not questioned by the op- 
ponents of this bill that the entire personal estate of an offender may be 
seized and appropriated ; but they insist only the life estate of his real 
property can be sold. Why is this ? What warrant have they for this 
distinction ? The Constitution and our courts are silent upon this point, and 
under the English laws there was no distinction of this kind. Have they 
rebel authority for it? If so, I have not seen it. But I am discussing what 
I did not intend to ; my colleagues have treated this subject so ably that I 
shall pass on. 

It is alleged by my colleague [Mr. Kernan] that the President held the 
act of 1862 to be unconstitutional, and had prepared his message to veto 



it; and then the resolution of 1862 was prepared and passed to meet the 
views of the President upon this point. The President's scruples in this 
behalf arose, as it appears, from the supposition that the Constitution in- 
hibited the confiscation of the fee of an oftender's real estate. I understand 
my colleague concurs in this view. I have great respect for the opinions 
of the President, and I know my colleague to be a sound lawyer; hence, 
in differing with them on this point, I have had some misgivings. But 
when I remember that the amendment only proposes to conform the reso- 
lution and act of 1862 to the provibious of the Constitution,! cougiatulate 
the friends of this bill that the President at least, if not my colleague, has 
no tenable reason for ditfering with the Judiciary Committee. 

This being so, I cannot see how any well-grounded objections can be 
urged against the amendment, unless the objector thinks the Constitution 
at fault. 

I understand that the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. 
Stevens,] and some others, are in favor of an entire repeal of the resolu- 
tion of 1862. The amendment in question practically does this, for the 
repeal of the resolution would leave the act to the construction of our 
courts, subject to the restrictions, if any, of the Constitution. The pas- 
sage of this amendment does the same thing, and at the same time re- 
moves any objections that may have arisen or shall rise in the mind of the 
President. If I am correct, then wit! the amendment be concurred in by 
all except such as are mistaken, or think the Constitution is cruel and un- 
just. Will the opponents of this amendment arraign the Constitution? — 
Will they repudiate the courts and seek to usurp their prerogative? Ire- 
member when the honorable gCLtleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] and his 
friends were great sticklers for our courts. Whence then this distrust? — 
Is it to be attributed to the progress of the age, or does he see a writing 
upon the wall indicative of the finger of truth and justice ? The friends 
of the amendment have entire confidence in the Constitution, and they be- 
lieve our courts upon examination will not fail to give its provisions full 
force and effect. 

Here I might stop, and should do so, were it not for the line of remark 
indulged in by honorable gentleman on the other side of the House. — 
The eloquent gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cox] holds that this bill "propo- 
ses to despoil the children of their inheritance for the crime of the parent." 
In his kindness he manifested a marked sympathy for these innocent chil- 
dren of the traitors now waging war against the Government of their own 
choice. By what authority he speaks and acts for this class, once subjects 
and citizens of this Government, I am not informed. Sir, I admit the im- 
portance of charity and kindness ; I concede that these children have an 
able and zealous champion, if not an apologist, for their outlaw fathers up- 
on this floor. But I am not willing to admit the correctness of his con- 
clusions, or that his sympathies are sufficiently comprehensive. 

We are in the midst of a wicked and unprovoked rebellion. It was 
concocted and brought on by the ungrateful fathers of the children for 
whom the honorable gsntleman so eloquently and feelingly pleads. 

Mr. COX. Do I understand the gentleman to charge tha,t the member 
from Ohio to whom he has referred has ever been the apologist or the de- 
fender of a traitor ? 

Mr. MORRIS I do not so charge. 

Mr. COX. Then you do not make any such charge ? 



Mr. MORRIS. I do not, and the language will show I do not. 

In our eflFort3 to suppress this gigantic wrong we have, or soon shall 
have, expended one thousand million dollars, and filled some three hun- 
dred thousand new-made graves with murdered citizens. How is this 
enormous outlay of money to be repaid? Who ought to be punished for 
this wanton destruction of life ? These are practical questions. These 
questions are to be answeid by the agents of the loyal people here assem- 
bled. Three hundred thousand innocent men have been sacrificed ; and 
shall their unoffending offspring now be required to pay the expenses con- 
sequent upon the overt acts of traitors and parricides ? The real estate of 
the loyal soldier who sleeps in death at Chattanoga, at Gettysburg, or 
whose bones bleach uucared for beneath a southern sun, or furnish orna- 
ments for inhuman mothers, may be sold to raise the taxes assessed to pro- 
cure a substitute to fill his vacant place in the ranks of our armies. His 
widow, his orphan, guilty of no fault on their part, nor on the part of 
their murdered father, guilty of no crime, no prodigality, no neglect, are 
turned away homeless and beggard. They weep not for a home only, but 
also for a desolated country and the death of a husband and father. This 
scene the honorable gentleman entirely overlooked. His benign and Chris- 
tian philanthrophy yearned for the offspring of traitors, the progeny of 
fiends whose parricidal hands drip with the blood of butchered loyahsts. 
In his magnanimity he would have them released from paying one penny 
into our depleted Treasury, and their real estate guarded with jealous care 
and restored to them in fee simple, with perhaps a group of human chat- 
tels to cultivate their lands and minister to their wants. Noble charity ! 
Unexampled benificence ! Who would not wish to be a son of a traitor ? 
The example will cheer and encourage not only Jeff. Davis, but the old 
arch traitor himself, and inspire the hope that his lost estate may yet be 
restored to his dear innocents now in arms against the Government — an 
estate real wrested in fee from the old fiend some six thousand years since 
by authority of the constitution and laws of Almighty God. What a stu- 
pendous wrong was done to his innocent heirs ! Here is a field for the 
activities and the eloquence of the honorable gentleman. 

Mr. CHANLER. Under what law and in what spirit would the gen- 
tleman rvifuse, when peace is granted to this country by the Power which 
rules all nations, to grant to the offspring of a traitor the right to live in 
this country, to enjoy the protection of the law, to inherit property, and 
to carry on the system of creation? Under what law would he deny to 
the offspring of his family the right of inheritance? 

Mr. MORRIS, of New York. I will say to my colleague that I have 
not discussed that point yet, but I shall come to it after awhile ; and I 
think I shall show him that I will extend to the children of a traitor the 
benign influences of Christianity; that I would protect them just as the 
children of murdered loyalists are protected at the North, notwithstanding 
their parents are gailty, and then they can earn their livelihood by pru- 
dence and industry, as northern children do. 

Mr. CHANLER. I thank the gentleman. Then the shafts of his irony 
return upon himself. These children, according to his own admission, are 
to be protected under his own stipulation. 

Mr. MORRIS, of New York. I would only reply that if the gentleman 
was not wounded he would not writhe. 



6 

I must confess I have my sympathies and my affinities; but they run 
in quite a different direction at this time. They mourn the error of the 
rebels in desolating our country and in entailing upon their children ig- 
nominy and poverty ; they cluster around the orphans of the slaughtered 
"heroic dead." Allow me to say to the gentleman — 

"The man who pauses in the paths of treason 
Halts on quicksand — the first step ingulfs him." 

I now ask, and I want this House to answer, is it unjust, is it wicked, 
is it unconstitutional to take the property of traitors to repair the ruin they 
themselves have wrought? I am not indifferent nor am I forgetful of 
their innocent offspring. They, in common with others, as is ever the 
case, must suffer in consequence of the errors, imprudence, mistakes, and 
crimes of their parents. They have this to encourage them, however, 
they are no worse off pecuniarily than thousands at the North ; and if they 
are industrious and prudent, as are the children of the inhabitants of the 
laboring North, they will secure a competence, and reap a richer reward 
than idleness can ever bestow. 

Should some villain in the absence of the honorable gentleman pilfer his 
goods, murder his wife, and burn his dwelling, would he ask no reparation; 
would not the law give it to him ? Would his tenderness for the inno- 
cent children of the transgresspr induce bim to neglect his own ? If the 
gentleman will undertake for all of the children who do not receive land 
in fee as the heirs of such as fail to transmit it to them in consequence of 
the prodigality, intemperance, and indiscretion of their fathers, saying 
nothing of crime, he will find ample scope for his benevolence and em- 
ployment for life. Can it be said, in the language of the gentleman, "Such 
a system is the very wantonness and excess of tyranny ?" Tf to take the 
property of a wro!ig-doer to pay in part the expenses of his own wilful 
acts is what the gentleman alleges, then must we look for a new code of 
morality. Heaven pardons upon repentance and restitution for the in- 
jury done. These are conditions precedent in all cases. Are traitors an 
exception ? 

A few words more, and I have done. My colleague [Mr. Kernan] 
said : 

" I do believe that if we l^ve our country, if we hope to see our people ever again living peace- 
fully under a united Government, we should, toward the masses uf the people in the rebellious 
States, hold out every induet-ment which the Government honorably cauh<dd out tb induce them 
to desert the seoessioti leaders." 

These are noble words, and I most cordially concur in the sentiments 
thus eloquently expressed. 

But when the question comes, how sliall this 1)6 done? the honorable 
gentleman and myself differ very widely. I much fear my colleague did 
not reflect that the great masses in the rebel armies are non-landholders. 
I find a defect in our census. They should give the number of land-own- 
ers, and the amount owned by each. I would like to know just the num- 
ber of land-owners and the amount owned by each in the several rebel 
and in the several loyal States. In the absence of this, and having no ac- 
tual data, I can only say I have always understood that the most of the 
lands in the rebel States, especially the cotton and sugar-growing ones, are 
owed by planters, and that each plantation is composed of a large tract of 
land. 

The number of land-owners, therefore, when compared with the bal- 
ance of the population, must be small. I am also assured that these land- 



owners, few as they are, for years have wielded the civil and the political in- 
fluences which have controlled these States — that the white population, 
not owning lands, are as dependent and subservient to these " lords of the 
manor " as are the slaves. These land-owners are the men who inaugura- 
ted, and who are responsible for, the rebellion now desolating our country. 
The masses yielded to these lords of the soil as did the masses to the usur- 
pations of Louis Napoleon in France. These land-owners and leaders of 
this insurrection are sustained by these masses, who are in the ranks of the 
rebel sH'mies fiom necessity ; and they and their leaders are fed and cloth- 
ed from the labor of their slaves. Take these soldiers from their ranks, 
and these laborers from their fields and their shops, and where are these 
leaders ? 

The question is, how shall we win these masses from those who have 
thus deludt'd them ? My colleague says by protecting, perpetuating, and 
securing to the heirs of these traitors their real estate in fee ; thus, as I 
hold, enabling their decendants to continue a system that, like treason, 
works and has ever worked corruption of morals, destruction of civil 
rights, and which has begotten an aristocracy who are thundering at our 
gates and murdering our citizens. Will this withdraw the masses from 
their leaders ? 

History demonstrates that from the formation of any Government, a 
struggle arises between two elements for the mastery. This ever has 
been, and perhaps ever will be. This struggle is not, as some allege, be- 
tween freedom and slavery, but between capital and labor. I care not to 
what country you turn, or to what age of the world you look, you tvill find 
marked iliusirations. You will also find that wherever labor, an ordinance 
of Heaven, is respected and properly compensated, it is in the ascendent, 
and a free Government is the fruit. This follows as certainly and as nec- 
essarily as gain from the combined influence of sunshine and showers. — 
On the contrary, wherever capital gains the mastery, it becomes exacting, 
cruel, imperious, insolent, oppressive; labor is despised, degraded, and the 
fruit is an intoUerable aristocracy. 

This fruit wholly matured begets a monarchy. This, I insist, holds 
true in all ages and countries. It is as certain in a land wh(;re there are 
no negroes as it is where they -abound. This truth is evidenced in our 
own country, as well as in others. At the North labor is respected, en- 
couraged, corapensited, and is the ruling power. Her lakes, rivers, ca- 
nals, and workshops hum with industry, and the sterile lauds speak in elo- 
quent language of its resources, happinesss, and wealth. Here, too, free- 
dom is as vigorous and stalwart as are the oaks of the forest. The ave- 
nues !o place are as open to the sons of the laboring man as they are to 
the rich; and usually the former are found traversing them in reward of 
their intelligence and industry. This is not that norihein men have any 
pre'eminen( e over otheis, but it is by reason of a system that produces this 
r«8ult. Let t'lis system pervade our entire nation and its future will be as 
incompieh' n-ible as eternity and as enduring as time. 

Look at the States in rebellion. Here labor is despised, degraded, and 
atcompensateil. Capital has long lorded it over its discomfited rival, an4 
the fruit is apparent. It is now being gathered in tears and in blood; 
This is n t because southern men are wanting in kindness or Christianity 
as compar- d with others; this is not because black men are there; but it 
is the inevitable fruit of a system. The practical workings would be th« 
same with any race or color; adopt the same system, other things being 



g 013 701 747 

equal, in Russia, England, or Ireland, and the same consequences will fol- 
low. I therefore talk of a system ; a system as ruinous to white men as to 
colored ; as ruinous to a free Government as is disloyalty. I point now to 
its workings as evidence of its danger and its wickedness. He who 
expects to remedy this evil by cherishing its cause, he who expects har- 
mony without destroying the apple of discord, is as rational as is tbe inebri- 
ate who expects to repair his wasted fortunes, restore his health, and 
give comfort and happiness to his family by still adhering to his cups. 

Sir, I would win these masses from their secession leaders by th^ hope 
of justice, protection, and freedom. I would confiscate the fee in the lands 
of these rebel knaves, and then I would parcel it in small farms and sell it 
at a living price to any actual settler who could purchase and pay for it, be 
he whom he may. Hold out this boon, set this beacon-light upon the hill- 
tops, and the masses will flee their leaders and hasten to our standard as 
"the panting heart to a water-brook." Do this and the rebellion and the 
system that begat it are forever dead; do this and slavery and the system 
that loves it are dead. The hopes of a home, the possession and owner- 
ship of land guarantied to those who have been coercedinto this rebellion, 
will deplete the rebel ranks, strengthen our Government, replenish our 
Treasury, and inaugurate a system that will regenerate, redeem, and bless 
the entire South. Slavery, say you? The problem of slavery has been 
solved; if it ever had protection under the Constitution, the South have 
taken it out. The Almighty, as of old, has interposed, and the oppressed 
are passing through the receding waters, while their oppressors are about 
to be ingulfed in the returning waves. What would 1 do with the slaves? 
I would treat him as a man ; he should have the rights of a citizen and the 
protection of our laws. Until this is secured to him Heaven will chasten, 
and we can have no permanent peace. These things being done, and we 
shall have a nation, one in purpose, one in hope, one in sympathy, one in 
love, one in perpetuity. This being done, enterprise, industry, manufac- 
tures, commerce, the school-house, a code of laws by and under which all 
are equally protected, with free labor, and a development of the resources 
of the South now latent, will increase the material wealth of our country 
within thirty years, thereby furnishing a sum sufficient to pay our national 
debt, and feed, clothe, educate, and induct into the paths of industry and 
usefulness the innocent children for whom so much sympathy has been 
manifested. 

Sir, I look to the future in hope. A system will attain throughout our 
entire nation under which labor shall be respected and protected. With 
this system, and universal freedom, our national capital, our cities and 
towns both North and South, shall hum with business; our farmers shall 
drive their teams "afield" with joy; the Potomac, the rivers of our nation 
shall join in the labors of man, and wipe the prespiration from their pond- 
erous brows as they bear upOn their bosoms the accumulating products of 
the several States to our seaboard. And then old ocean, catching the en- 
thusiasm at early dawn, shall rouse from his granite bed, fling back his 
covering, leap from his couch, and smilingly engage in a business which 
shall brmg wealth to our nation and Christianity and universal freedom to 
man. 



L. Towers <b Co., Priat«re, corner Louieiana Avenue and Sixth etieet. 



/ 



A 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




dH8^ 



